Sam N
Well-known
The 24/2.8 is great and extremely small. The 21/2 is also excellent aside from some vignetting which is more apparent with DSLRs than it is on film. My 50 is a cheapo "made in Japan" 50/1.8 but it gives great results.
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
I'll second the 24/2.8 as mine is extremely sharp. There is also an f2 version, which I have not tried. It is very expensive. The f2.8 can be bought for $100-$150 depending on the version and condition.
Lilserenity
Well-known
I think the short answer is that you can't go wrong with many of the Zuiko primes. Even the dime a dozen 135mm f/3.5s are good lenses and tiny (I don't have one though, 135mm is a bit too long for me.)
I'm using a 28mm f/3.5 (get the hood, it's important), a couple of 50s (50mm f/1.8 MIJ and f/1.4 early non-chrome, I picked this up the other week for £34! And a 100mm f/2.8)
Great lenses.
I have a soft spot for the 28mm f/3.5 not because I think it's better than the 2.8 (as I have never used one) but because mine has served me so well. Sharp wide open, exacting at anything else.
It's gotten to the extent now where I now use my OM2n's more than I use my M2; and as that requires some shutter attention soon (banding across some negatives from the blinds), I'm enjoying the OMs more... *runs*
Vicky
I'm using a 28mm f/3.5 (get the hood, it's important), a couple of 50s (50mm f/1.8 MIJ and f/1.4 early non-chrome, I picked this up the other week for £34! And a 100mm f/2.8)
Great lenses.
I have a soft spot for the 28mm f/3.5 not because I think it's better than the 2.8 (as I have never used one) but because mine has served me so well. Sharp wide open, exacting at anything else.
It's gotten to the extent now where I now use my OM2n's more than I use my M2; and as that requires some shutter attention soon (banding across some negatives from the blinds), I'm enjoying the OMs more... *runs*
Vicky
Frontman
Well-known
I like the 24/2.8, the super-common and dirt-cheap 50/1.8, and the 90/2 macro. These three cover the field for me, I have let go my more expensive and exotic Zuikos and narrowed my collection to lenses I actually use.
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
I think the short answer is that you can't go wrong with many of the Zuiko primes. Even the dime a dozen 135mm f/3.5s are good lenses and tiny (I don't have one though, 135mm is a bit too long for me.)
I'm using a 28mm f/3.5 (get the hood, it's important), a couple of 50s (50mm f/1.8 MIJ and f/1.4 early non-chrome, I picked this up the other week for £34! And a 100mm f/2.8)
Great lenses.
I have a soft spot for the 28mm f/3.5 not because I think it's better than the 2.8 (as I have never used one) but because mine has served me so well. Sharp wide open, exacting at anything else.
It's gotten to the extent now where I now use my OM2n's more than I use my M2; and as that requires some shutter attention soon (banding across some negatives from the blinds), I'm enjoying the OMs more... *runs*
Vicky
I picked up a 135mm f2.8 recently and though I'm not a huge fan of anything longer than 85mm, this 135mm is a pleasure to use when you're sitting around a group of people and want to pick someone out for a candid. With this focal length they seldom notice you taking the shot!
sreed2006
Well-known
What is happening on this thread is exactly what I expected. This is like trying to answer the question, "What is the best car?" Okay, you want a high-mileage compact. Do you want the cloth or leather interior? Manual transmission or automatic? Going camping on dirt trails? Well, this car may not actually get you there.
To be perfectly honest, every single one of the OM Zuiko lenses can be highly recommended. There are subtle differences between them that make some more useful in certain situations. Do you want a system that is not heavy? Stick with the 28/3.5 and 50/1.8. Got bucks? Go with the 40/2 for the lightest Zuiko of all.
Want low light capabilities? The 28/2 and the 50/1.2 are tops. Want the very best image quality of all? Go with the 21/2, the 50/2, the 100/2, buy a bigger bag and a subscription to the gym.
Really, there is no answer to what are the best Zuiko lenses. They're all good. But, in different ways.
So, really, I do recommend the 28/3.5 and the 50/1.8 (made in Japan). Those won't break the bank and you will have some very nice lenses that will serve you well.
To be perfectly honest, every single one of the OM Zuiko lenses can be highly recommended. There are subtle differences between them that make some more useful in certain situations. Do you want a system that is not heavy? Stick with the 28/3.5 and 50/1.8. Got bucks? Go with the 40/2 for the lightest Zuiko of all.
Want low light capabilities? The 28/2 and the 50/1.2 are tops. Want the very best image quality of all? Go with the 21/2, the 50/2, the 100/2, buy a bigger bag and a subscription to the gym.
Really, there is no answer to what are the best Zuiko lenses. They're all good. But, in different ways.
So, really, I do recommend the 28/3.5 and the 50/1.8 (made in Japan). Those won't break the bank and you will have some very nice lenses that will serve you well.
redisburning
Well-known
FWIW I have a silver nose 50mm f1.4 which I kept over a very high serial number f1.4.
ferider
Veteran
I've tested several Zuiko 50s, and the 50/1.4 > 1.1 Mio beats everything. Really good, pre-asph Summilux territory.
The 35/2 doesn't get the best grades normally, but I really like my late copy, its sharp and flare resistant.
Consider also non-Zuikos. I tested my 28/2 Zuiko against my Kiron 28/2 and kept the Kiron. And my 90/2.5 series I (Tokina made) is one of my all time favorite lenses, and I bought it for US 130 or so.
You can learn a lot by browsing Gary's test. Also about sample variation and camera behavior:
http://web.archive.org/web/20050208000949/members.aol.com/olympusom/lenstests/default.htm
Roland.
The 35/2 doesn't get the best grades normally, but I really like my late copy, its sharp and flare resistant.
Consider also non-Zuikos. I tested my 28/2 Zuiko against my Kiron 28/2 and kept the Kiron. And my 90/2.5 series I (Tokina made) is one of my all time favorite lenses, and I bought it for US 130 or so.
You can learn a lot by browsing Gary's test. Also about sample variation and camera behavior:
http://web.archive.org/web/20050208000949/members.aol.com/olympusom/lenstests/default.htm
Roland.
Last edited:
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
Ready for one-sentence answer?
"If you find *any* f/2 Zuiko lens that you can justify buying, DO IT."
There.
Oh, and 35/2 is a superb lens, don't listen to those who said otherwise unless they can prove it to you with pictures.
Also 24/2
Well, so much for my one sentence answer
"If you find *any* f/2 Zuiko lens that you can justify buying, DO IT."
There.
Oh, and 35/2 is a superb lens, don't listen to those who said otherwise unless they can prove it to you with pictures.
Also 24/2
Well, so much for my one sentence answer
filmfan
Well-known
It will be a black OM-1 with 28mm f/2.8 and 50mm f/1.4-- that way I can afford it this year instead of holding out and waiting for the 28mm f/2 and 50mm f/1.2.
ferider
Veteran
A recommendation:
If your OM1 is below serial 1,110,000, have the foam removed (or DIY). Check with John to make sure. I've had a MINT OM1 when after a couple of years, suddenly the Prism started etching away, it's just a question of time unless you remove the foam.
Best,
Roland.
If your OM1 is below serial 1,110,000, have the foam removed (or DIY). Check with John to make sure. I've had a MINT OM1 when after a couple of years, suddenly the Prism started etching away, it's just a question of time unless you remove the foam.
Best,
Roland.
igi
Well-known
You'd find both of those lenses good enough that you might forget to buy their faster versions
...and in case you'd go hunting for Zuiko's in the future, here's a good list that will tell you lens coating based on serial numbers
http://olympus.dementia.org/Hardware/misc/lensCoatings.txt
rodt16s
Well-known
I have Zuikio's between 18 and 250 and my goto set always is/was the 24/2, 35/2 and 100/2.. and that 100 is special
pagpow
Well-known
I'm interested that the 28/3.5 gets such praise here. A while back it was all 28/2 for IQ, and 28/2.8 for good affordable. Lately, I've seen suggestions that the 28/2.8 is only marginally better than the 3.5. I have the 3.5 I'll have to go review slides taken w. it years ago and see if I like it.
I am not surprised by the 35/2.8 love shown here. I have that lens, never shot it, until a few years after purchase and was blown away by the crispness of this then disrespected (well, maybe better labelled "unlauded") lens.
I am not surprised by the 35/2.8 love shown here. I have that lens, never shot it, until a few years after purchase and was blown away by the crispness of this then disrespected (well, maybe better labelled "unlauded") lens.
kuzano
Veteran
Ah!... the zuiko 135.....
Ah!... the zuiko 135.....
Particularly when it's mounted on a 4/3 body, where it's a 270. You can really get back a ways.
Ah!... the zuiko 135.....
Particularly when it's mounted on a 4/3 body, where it's a 270. You can really get back a ways.
gavinlg
Veteran
Quoted for truth.
ishpop
tall person
I used the 24 2.8, 50 1.4, and 100 2.8 all on my 5DMKII as my standard digital kit.
Each performs wonderfully honestly. The 24 works amazng as a documentary lens, as long as you get the people in the 80% center of the frame, they will not be distorted. So A great street lense as well. The 100 is great for travel, compacted landscapes when you are in the great wide open. And of course, does great with faces. The 50 is the most versataile for me for most of the reasons a 50 would be. Also, at 1.4 is delivers just as much OOF interestingness as my canon 50 1.2 ever did, and is sharper where its sharp.
Having said all of that, I am looking to try the 35 f2 for documentary stuff, and the 21 F2 if I ever find one, as I still miss using my Digital Zuiko 11-22 and currently have nothing wider than my 24.
I also need something longer, like 200-300, and Canon's longer zooms are so huge...
Each performs wonderfully honestly. The 24 works amazng as a documentary lens, as long as you get the people in the 80% center of the frame, they will not be distorted. So A great street lense as well. The 100 is great for travel, compacted landscapes when you are in the great wide open. And of course, does great with faces. The 50 is the most versataile for me for most of the reasons a 50 would be. Also, at 1.4 is delivers just as much OOF interestingness as my canon 50 1.2 ever did, and is sharper where its sharp.
Having said all of that, I am looking to try the 35 f2 for documentary stuff, and the 21 F2 if I ever find one, as I still miss using my Digital Zuiko 11-22 and currently have nothing wider than my 24.
I also need something longer, like 200-300, and Canon's longer zooms are so huge...
Wouter
Well-known
I have the 2.8/100, 1.2/55, 1.4/50 (2x), 1.8/50, 2/28 and 2.8/24, and bought a 3.5/21 today. All arew great, I use the 100 and 28 the most. The 2/28 is really special, the 100/2.8 great for portraits, I never used the 21 but then I've surrendered to zuiko fevers. I also use 2 OM1s and an OM2n. They´re great and easy to clean.
Ade-oh
Well-known
The only poor OM Zuiko lenses I've used have been the zooms (which were probably not bad in their day anyway). The extraordinary thing about the whole OM range is what good value it is nowadays. The 'single-digit' bodies are robust, professional-quality units and the lenses are comparable with Nikkor and Canon primes of their era, but most are a fraction of the price of their equivalents. I recently acquired a near mint condition 135/3.5 on Ebay for £16, and an excellent 300/4.5 for a bit less than £80. It's worth buying now because my perception is that Olympus OM prices are starting to creep upwards.
igi
Well-known
I also noticed that... I once bought a 24mm F2.8 at KEH, EX condition with caps for $179, but now the same costs $199.
Even on ebay, I sometimes see prices slowly but steadily...
Ironically, I think RFF is to blame for this! :angel:
Last edited: